Income Tax : The FAQs explain the revised CBDT guidelines on compounding offences under the Income-tax Act effective from 17 October 2024. They...
Income Tax : The article explains who can file appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the orders that are appealable, applicable tim...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that additions cannot stand without a clear link between seized material and the assessee. It ruled that third-p...
Income Tax : Judicial rulings clarify that satisfaction for initiating action against other persons in search cases must be recorded promptly. ...
Income Tax : CBDT's new Compounding of Offence Guidelines (2024) simplify the process but maintain strict compliance rules. Learn about eligibi...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court held that rejection of a Vivad se Vishwas declaration was invalid because final assessment arose from survey pr...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that an addition under Section 69 could not be sustained solely on the basis of a seized loose sheet without ind...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that assessments under Section 153A were invalid because no search warrant was issued in the assessee’s name. As t...
Income Tax : The ITAT Hyderabad held that the assessment orders were time-barred under Section 153 despite the DRP process. Both assessments we...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that limitation under Section 153B had to be computed from the searched person's last panchanama, making the assessm...
Income Tax : Central Government has decided to extend the time limits to 30th June, 2021 in the following cases where the time limit was earlie...
Income Tax : Availability of Miscellaneous Functionalities related to ‘Selection of Case of Search Year’ and ‘Relevant Search...
ITAT Delhi deleted penalties imposed for alleged cash transactions after holding that the electronic evidence relied upon by the Revenue was inadmissible in law. The Tribunal observed that mandatory procedures relating to digital evidence handling and chain of custody were not properly followed.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that once reassessment proceedings are quashed as void ab initio, the satisfaction recorded therein for initiating penalty proceedings cannot survive independently. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Jaya Lakshmi Rice Mills.
The Tribunal deleted penalty levied on society charges and depreciation disallowances after finding that the claims were fully disclosed in books and audited financial statements. It held that ad hoc disallowances alone cannot trigger concealment penalty.
Tribunal ruled that income tax demands not included in the approved resolution plan were irrevocably extinguished. The decision followed the terms of the NCLT-approved insolvency resolution plan restored by the Supreme Court.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee was covered under the search proceedings even though its name did not specifically appear in the panchnama because the warrant referred to “& Ors.” The Tribunal therefore upheld jurisdiction under Section 153A.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment based solely on search material seized from a third party must be initiated under Section 153C and not Sections 147/148. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment for lack of jurisdiction and absence of a mandatory satisfaction note.
Mumbai ITAT held that unsecured loans received through banking channels and fully recorded in books cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A merely on suspicion. The addition and consequential interest disallowance were deleted in full.
Delhi ITAT held that additions under Section 68 cannot be sustained merely on Investigation Wing reports without independent enquiry by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal deleted additions relating to alleged bogus share capital.
Delhi ITAT held that a single consolidated satisfaction note covering multiple assessment years without identifying year-wise incriminating material is invalid under Section 153C. The Tribunal consequently quashed all related assessments.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer wrongly invoked Section 143(3) despite the case being covered under the block assessment provisions of Section 153C. ITAT reaffirmed that jurisdictional defects cannot be cured by regular scrutiny proceedings.
